Moved!

This blog has now MOVED. Check out the new improved blog here! Follow me there or on Facebook or Twitter to get my latest updates. Also search for me on Bloglovin'.


I hope to see you there!






-Blighted Star

Not my cup of T: Music Festival threatens rare wildlife and ancient woodland

I love music. I love music festivals. But there is a time and a place to hold them.

That time is not setting up when rare ospreys are nesting and that place is not next to delicate ancient woodland filled with otters, red squirrels, kingfishers and bats. And yet that is exactly what T in the Park are doing.

Or planning on doing. They haven't actually got planning permission yet  but they are already selling tickets and have posters featuring Strathallan Castle. Strathallan Castle is the location, a place known for its heritage and stunning natural beauty. It gets this beauty from being such a wonderful site for nature. The music festival threatens to harm this forever.

Ospreys are a protected species. There are only 200 breeding pairs in the whole of Scotland.

It seems completely obvious to me that 85,000 people, all their litter, the very loud noise of the music and speakers, and the unnatural light is going to have a massive impact on local wildlife and disrupt their natural behaviour. The proposers of this deny any impacts and spout about mitigation. Many people on the internet too are raging about how it's nonsense that a music festival can have an impact. I simply cannot comprehend these beliefs.

Think about it, if you are trying to live normal everyday life next to a very loud several day long house party it's likely it would disrupt your routine. You would not be able to sleep or concentrate. I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy about all the empty bottles and other more disgusting things spilling onto your garden and ruining your plants either. And we understand what this noise is and that it will end. Wildlife have no such knowledge. Also, those of you with pets will know the terror that some go through when there are fireworks. These are domestic animals who are used to human activity and noise. So how will wild animals that have no experience of this react? I expect they will flee for their lives, or at the very least change their natural behaviour.

The ancient woodland will also likely suffer. Ancient woodland is defined as areas that have been continuously wooded since the 1600s. This does not mean they are full of ancient trees (trees within woods rarely live as long as those trees in open spaces). They sit upon preserved soils that have never been contaminated or disrupted by human activity. As a result they harbour unique biodiversity that cannot exist anywhere else. These ecosystems and networks have developed over centuries. Once these have been disturbed they are gone ... forever. Even centuries from now ancient woodland cannot ever recover to its previous 1600 natural state. As a result, the Woodland Trust are very concerned about the proposal and are fighting this threat every step of the way.

Almost all woods with bluebells in the UK are ancient woodland.

On top of the arrogance and disrespect of the landowners and DF Concerts as suggested above, there are other key issues:

• A cherry picker consisting of a noisy crane, the Scottish flag, and hanging CDs was put right next to the resident osprey's nest before they returned. This nest sits within the location that T in the Park want to hold their festival. If the ospreys nest there, as a protected species they could prove to a be serious obstacle to permission being granted. So instead of taking their chances, they planned to 'gently encourage' them to use the new nest provided for them. Ospreys use the same nest for years and perfect it bit by bit (who doesn't love a bit of interior design?). They are unlikely to chose a new man-made nest. I see nothing 'gentle' about waving a giant Saltire next to their home which could scare them away from the area forever. RSPB were not happy about this.
• Under EU law it is illegal to disturb protected species' breeding sites or the species themselves. I think the above activities could be argued to be a disturbance.
• T in the Park has left everything very much to the last minute. They have 3 months until the festival, they don't have permission to hold it or prepare for it. They haven't properly finished preparing their plans including official ecological assessments and mitigation plans. Wildlife charities are also disagreeing with the ecologist being paid to support DF Concerts' application. 
• Despite this lack of permission they have already begun preparing, including lopping trees and carving out future roads in the turf.
• There are also rumours from locals of nets put up over kingfisher habitat and the blocking up of otter holes. More 'gentle encouragement'?
• Why does a music festival need to be held next to woodland and a castle? People don't go to music festivals to see castles...
• Whatever the plans, damaging or not, these actions are nothing but disrespect for process, disrespect to nature and a use of dirty tactics to get what they want.

The ospreys have now returned, and they chose their original nest despite the scaremongering. I fear for them and their future offspring if the festival goes ahead. I really hope, alongside many others, that it does not. It will be a disaster for the area, as it is not temporary, six weeks of massive disruption held every summer. 

If you agree that permission should not be granted and the festival should be held elsewhere, please send your thoughts to the consultation. The organisers and the Perth and Kinross Council need to realise it is not acceptable to treat the environment this way, especially when there are alternative locations. You can do this easily here, through the Woodland Trust website.

Thirty struggles of being an eco-warrior

Whether you're devoted to saving our precious planet or are simply attempting to be as eco friendly as you can, being green can be a struggle! Here are 27 struggles for eco-warriors:

1. Your sheer bafflement at some people's inability or lack of will to recycle. You put card in one box and cans in the other people, it's not hard!

2. Feeling guilty every time you drive your car anywhere, and dreaming of owning an electric car one day.

3. Feeling like a terrible person when forced to get petrol from BP or Shell due to that scary red light on your dashboard. But then wondering if other oil companies are actually any better...

4. Being angry at people who think development is the answer to everything ... Have you not heard of 'Prosperity without Growth'???

5. Being secretly heartbroken when you discover a company you love is being very environmentally damaging and having to publicly turn against them ... I'm looking at you Lego! (They ended their partnership with Shell now hurrah!)

6. Again feeling immensely guilty whenever you buy a remotely luxury item .... Charity and antique shops are your only safe haven!

7. Judging people who feel the need to constantly buy things ... Money doesn't buy happiness for you or the planet!

8. Failing at following a greener diet ... How do you cook tofu anyway?

9. Forcing yourself to endure the torture that is public transport.

10. Questioning why so many buildings without solar panels exist. It's like we're not even trying people!

11. Thinking wind turbines are actually very pretty despite everyone else's nimbyism ... Do people not see how ugly power stations are?

12. A thousand polar bear pictures later still feeling very sad at the thought of their melting home.

13. People assuming you are some kind of hippie, despite lack of dreadlocks and tie dye. And wondering what's so bad about hippies anyway?

14. Pretty much hating all politicians, except the Green Party

15. The existence of climate change deniers, yeah let's not even go there...

16. Hoarding things in your endeavour to reuse everything, knowing you'll find a use for that obscure giant envelope one day

17. That soul destroying moment when you realise you've forgotten to bring your tote bag to the supermarket and have to use a plastic one or buy yet another cloth bag for life.

18. Plastic is the devil incarnate, yet you can't seem to escape it

19. Doubling your time spent shopping due to having to hunt for Eco-friendly products

20. The colour green is so intrinsically linked to being eco that you get confused when it's used to represent something else

21. Judging everyone who owns a land rover 

22. Annoying your friends and work colleagues with numerous lectures about how environmentally damaging everything is and how they should try being greener.

23. Cursing climate change when the weather is horrible 

24. Wondering if you should feel bad about beautiful hot weather as it could be caused by climate change

25. The Daily Mail is blasphemy.

26. Defending Greenpeace with your life when anyone attempts to criticise.

27. Dying a little inside whenever you see an empty/closed office or shop with ALL its lights on.

28. Ignorant comments on the Internet .... Noo man made climate change isn't a myth simply because there isn't a 100% consensus from scientists (seriously 97% is still not good enough for you?), and the fact it still snows in the UK sometimes ... These are genuinely 2 comments I just found. And I know there are much worse out there...

29. Not understanding people's apathy ... How can you not care about the destruction being done on our behalf to nature and everything it provides us?

30. But despite all this, knowing it's all worth it to help save our beautiful home, for us, wildlife and future generations. You wouldn't give up this passion for the world (ok you would if it meant saving it!)

Have you experienced any of these struggles? Or are there some important ones you think I've missed? I'd love to hear from you!

Cesar Millan is not cruel ... Anyone with a true understanding of dogs can see that

This is not an environmental post but I stumbled across on article and felt I needed to have my say, as life with dogs is very important and personal to me. If you want a look article is here: https://www.thedodo.com/community/dogsandethics/cesar-millan-fails-german-dog--730677947.html?xrs=RebelMouse_fb#

If not, short explanation: Cesar Millan is known as the dog whisperer because of his unconventional techniques. It appears that he has helped many apparently "incurable" dangerous, disobedient and nervous dogs, saving them from being put down or making them happier. His reasoning and actions always made perfect sense to me as it fitted in perfectly with my own experiences with dogs. However, this article argues his methods go against science and are cruel.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this article. I also feel that the writer doesn't actually understand anything about dogs. I was very surprised to discover all this criticism and opposition to Cesar in the dog world. I assumed, naively, that most people agreed with him. So I took it in and thought about it, after all there are two sides to every story. I usually support science and endeavour to always be open minded. However, after thinking about it and watching a Dog Whisperer episode, I conclude that this writer is wrong.

The writer says that dogs are not like wolves and don't have a pack mentality*. I'm sorry but that is nonsensical. My parents have 10 dogs and they live exactly like a wolf pack/family group (just less howling and killing things). Feral dogs that live wild in cities abroad also live like this when left to their own devices. I have grown up surrounded by our pack for 23 years. Everything that Cesar does is exactly what our dogs do to each other whilst living together as a group. If a member pushes their luck, the others will put them in their place and remind them of their manners. This is often with a small nip and/or snarl to remind them. It doesn't hurt and is identical to what Cesar does but with his fingers. Sometimes it goes further and a dog may make the other dog submit to them, which they do by laying on the floor and showing their belly. Again this is identical to what Cesar does. Dogs do this all the time, it is just how their conversation and society works. Cesar does claim to be a pack leader which, arguably, is wrong but in my mind that is irrelevant. By using his techniques you telling the dog that what they are doing is either unacceptable or acceptable behaviour in your pack society. You don't need to be a leader to do this, you can be an equal. So, since when has being assertive and trying to work with the dog in a natural way been a bad thing?

Cesar treats dogs like dogs whilst all this science and behavioural methods seem to treat dogs as if they are wolves that have magically evolved into people. I'm likely to be wrong but that's the implication I got from the article and people's comments. Dogs are still wild at heart in everything they do (playing and walking is like hunting, bonding with us is bonding with the pack). So the best way to deal with difficult dogs is to treat them like the pack and how other dogs would treat them. It's a language they understand and it makes them more comfortable and happy. How would you like somebody shouting and making gestures at you in a language you don't understand? The same thing is done with horses in the method known as 'join up', it is about speaking their language. Nothing Cesar does physically or emotionally hurts these dogs and the fact that it works proves that he really he is speaking the dog's language. I'm sorry but my personal, real experiences have taught me so much about dogs and I'm going to believe that over some obscure studies that contradict the evidence before my eyes.

And finally, Cesar never claimed to be a qualified dog behaviourist/trainer or scientist! In the last episode I watched he got a qualified dog trainer to help him (who, by the way, seemed to approve of Cesar's methods even though they were different to his own). Nothing is as black and white as people are making out here. Also Cesar is often dealing with very aggressive, damaged dogs, of course he has to use some strong measures to stop them being dangerous. It's that or them being put down. The owners he helps often say they tried behaviourists who simply couldn't do anything. And if these behaviourists think that dogs don't have a pack mentality, it's no wonder why they failed.




*I know theories on wolves and dogs living in a hierarchical pack system has been debunked and I agree with that. But they still live and work together as a family group which to me is still a pack mentality. Also some dogs are naturally more dominant than others, just like people!

New Beginnings

New year. New job. New start.

That's me, I have been lucky enough to land a job, the role of campaign assistant with a national NGO. It's the first rung on the environmental career ladder that I've been dreaming and working to follow for two years or more. It may not be the job I want to do in the distant long term (but who knows what they want to do in the long term?!) but it's absolutely amazing to be involved in things I am so passionate about. A month in and everyday I'm still looking up in surprise to see it's 5pm and time to go home already, I guess time really does fly when you're having fun. To some extent I'm being paid to do what I do in my spare time anyway.

I'm not trying to gloat, I wanted to give an update on what I've been up to and I guess I'm trying to show that it is possible to get the job that you dream of.

I'm part of the generation of millennials, we've all got the same qualifications clamouring for the same jobs, of which there are very few. I've seen so many people jump on the first dull graduate scheme they could find or simply abandon the career they had set out to do. The career that their degrees and masters had prepared them for. You hear of so many people driving themselves into the ground whilst undertaking unpaid internships. 

I was doing a (wonderful) internship that I couldn't afford with a 2 hour each way commute into London to get there. It was part time which made it survivable. Most of the people who worked there were lawyers or had years of experience and PHDs under their belt. Similarly, the job vacancies I saw advertised (from the one good environmental jobs search website that exists) needed so much experience and qualifications I did not have. The panic and misery began to set in, one day I would just have to give up and settle for a corporate grad scheme that would kill my soul. I despise capitalism, how could I be happy working to increase profits instead of working to change the world for the better? 

But then I stumbled across a job advert on a obscure website I barely used, and the deadline was the very next day. Sounded perfect for me and my experience and it was close to home! I had 4 hours to write the application. And BAM, out of nowhere, got a job!

I was very lucky. I was lucky in that I was able to do an MSc in a relevant subject (as my undergrad wasn't very relevant). I was lucky that my dissertation from that got me an even more relevant internship straight away. The internship, hands down, got me the job. It's all I talked about in the interview. I know I'm so lucky in the opportunities I've had that others simply don't have. But I worked hard too and I stuck to what I wanted. I've worked towards a goal, volunteering at uni and writing blogs and following my passion got me there. I also searched the whole internet for a job.

So what I'm saying is, if you really want your dream job fight for it. I know I cannot speak for many career tracks but for environment or charity jobs I do believe it's possible to get there. I have friends in both these sectors who have got there, some after a year or so of doing other jobs (eg temping) and/or volunteering/interning, but they got their dream jobs. They didn't all do masters or even internships. So don't give up hope.

A lady who works at one of the Wildlife Trusts told me she would take someone with 2 years of charity volunteering over someone with fancy qualifications. But of course the fancy qualifications can help too, which is why it's exciting government are thinking about giving student loans for masters next year. Also charity internships are very often designed to be valuable for you and part time or even paid (it's almost as if they have an interest in being ethical!) so they could be your answer in a difficult job market where internships make all the difference. You can also qualify for jobseekers support if doing part time internship.

So don't give up on your dream just yet ... Motivation and patience may just be the answer.

P.S. To all the older generations who do not have any grasp of the harsh reality of today's job market (I couldn't even get a cleaning job that required no experience) and think us youths should all get off our backsides and do internships that amount to slave labour ... You can all, politely, 'do one'.

We should be in national uproar at the Infrastructure Bill ... where's the protest?

Something inside me just snapped.

I have finally been driven to anger by George Monbiot's latest article. He writes:

"As you read this, a monster of a bill is passing smoothly and quietly through Britain's parliament. It's so big and complex, and covers so many topics, that it makes a mockery of democracy. ... Bills like this are good places for burying bad news, and this one is a graveyard.' (my emphasis)

I have known about the Infrastructure Bill for months but nobody else seems to. Nothing appears to be happening. It sailed through the House of Lords with only minor changes from criticism that still do not reflect what needs to be done. It ignores the general public's views. And as Monbiot asks, why is Labour not doing anything? I have been involved with actions against the Bill as part of my role in my recent internship.  So yes, there is some work against it, working behind the scenes. A few trends on Twitter, unpublicised petitions and comments on Guardian articles.

But the Infrastructure Bill is possibly the biggest threat to the environment of our time in the UK!

But I'm hearing more about the ban on plastic bags in a distant land than I am about the threat on my doorstep. There should be public unrest and protest, MPs should be quaking in their boots in the wave of public opinion. Here's why:

• The Bill poses a huge threat to Britain's wildlife. Firstly, it lists wild boar as 'not ordinarily resident' in the UK. At the last census there were 819 wild boar living in the Forest of Dean. Their population was first established in 2004. I fail to see how that's not 'ordinarily resident'. As a result, it would be even easier for wild boar to be culled or completely removed by government. The Bill also poses an issue for any reintroduced species that previously became extinct. So, for example, red kites and sea eagles that have been reintroduced (with thousands of pounds of charities' money and public support) could be removed. The beavers peacefully living in Devon would be gone too. It could also work to prevent any future reintroductions of previously resident species. What's worse, if other species (previously resident or not) begin to colonise in the UK naturally they would be controlled too. This is likely to happen with the effects of climate change as our weather gets warmer and other places become too warm.
• And this is the climate change that the government, using the Infrastructure Bill, will only make worse. This is with the move to allow fracking. Whilst there is an uproar that I welcome on fracking, I fear that this is not being linked with the deceivingly named Infrastructure Bill which is being discussed now. By allowing the digging up of people's homes and fuelling the search for oil (instead of spending these resources on clean energy dare I say) they are acting against the Climate Change Act 2008. Our government is happy to go against democratic principles and against the law apparently. Fracking has been banned in some places in the USA, a country not exactly known for its consideration for the environment. The science behind fracking is very negative, fracking is polluting and dangerous. It is suggested that Defra has a report on fracking made almost unreadable by the amount of censorship. MPs have not seen this report. Censorship in a democracy? What is going on? Homes and habitats will be destroyed and emissions increased only for short term gain. This should not be acceptable.
• The Infrastructure Bill could wreck what little remains of our forests. I know less about this then I should but here the Woodland Trust examines it in detail.

As someone who was working within an environmental NGO when the Infrastructure Bill emerged, I can tell you that it made NGOs fearful. They have the expertise to fight it but they do not have the public support and outcry to build upon. Not yet anyway, but there is time to bring a fight.

If you care about the environment, if you care about what happens to the people and wildlife in this country, if you care about democracy, I beg of you to join the fight to create the uproar about this that should be happening. Write to your local MPs, write to ministers, write to Defra, Facebook it, tweet it #BintheBill, petition them, protest, anything you can think of. Let us create an uproar worthy of our nature and our people.

Action

Here's some links to give you a head start:

• Parliament information on getting your views heard
• Join the Twitter trend
• Petition to exempt forests and public land from Infrastructure Bill
• Petition to protect native species that have been reintroduced to the UK
• Petition to remove fracking from the Infrastructure Bill
• Petition to end the fracking report censorship
• Join the lobby against the Infrastructure Bill on 14th January (a few days time!) (Thanks to @frackfree_eu for letting me know about this, you should also give them a follow)
• I am in the process of writing a letter to send out, watch this blog as I will post a copy of it to provide a guideline/some ideas if you're uncertain what to write.

UPDATE: The vote on the Infrastructure Bill went in favour of fracking. There were some promises on preventing fracking in national parks, and protected areas and preventing water contamination but David Cameron is trying to go back on those. It may have passed but the Bill is in the process of being amended by both houses. So pressure is still desperately needed to direct these amendments the right way and the above actions you can take still apply. Also, preventing the Conservatives from winning the election would prevent David Cameron going back on those promises ... Just sayin' 

Hunting: a complex issue for environmentalism

I'm on the fence with hunting (hah some of you readers may see a pun there). I've gone from hating it (I loved the program Farthing Wood as a young child and had a toy fox called Foxy Loxy that I took everywhere), to supporting it (I grew up riding ponies and being a member of the Pony Club, therefore, yes I have been fox hunting on several occasions), to being disgusted with my own hypocrisy as I have developed into a firm environmentalist/conservationist. But now I'm following a middle ground, and it is a No Man's Land where I feel increasingly uneasy.

A Fox Hunt Meet

I would just like to clarify that I am a true animal lover. They are my life. I would never seek or enjoy the death or cruelty towards any creature. I hate spiders and even then I refuse to harm them. When I heard about the first wolf seen in the Grand Canyon for decades that got shot recently, I was honestly heartbroken. When it fits no purpose, is only for sport or endangered animals are involved I am very opposed to it. And when I have been fox hunting in the past, it was not about killing a fox for me and, I think, for most people who enjoy fox hunting it is never about that. You take the prey away and 'fox hunting' still exists. It is about the challenge of racing and leaping across the countryside, putting all your trust in the wonderful creature beneath you. It's about that bond between man and animal. It is exhilarating fun with quite a bit of terror thrown in, which is what makes it so enjoyable and so different to anything else I have ever done. Horses absolutely love going hunting. The tradition, camaraderie and culture of it is also a great thing to be a part of. When I have been hunting not many foxes or other animals were killed. They can often be 8 hour long treks with maybe only one or two kills to show for it and each hunt is in a different location. When I went hunting I would hope against hope that we would not catch anything. I cannot speak for everyone who goes fox hunting but I never knew anyone who was outright bloodthirsty. Once at a hunt meet (I expect most people won't believe this but I swear its true) two foxes ran past the group of horses and hounds. You might expect instant angry cries for the kill with hounds setting upon them instantly, but that did not happen. They were quietly allowed on their way. I'm not trying to argue you into supporting fox hunting here, I'm just highlighting my personal experiences.

Bubble-Wrap Conservation

There is a serious issue with modern conservation. It is often about keeping the environment in a fixed state, making sure everything is protected and stifled. It is essentially bubble-wrapped. Oh, isn't everything so cute and cuddly? We must not harm it or change anything. That is not the conservation ideal I support. I support the kind of conservation that fuels the current debate on rewilding. I support the restoration of habitats and species where it's about allowing the whole ecosystem to adapt, evolve and ultimately flourish just as nature intended. This is allowing nature to be cruel. This is also a nature where humans are not locked out. There's no reason in my mind why hunting cannot be a part of that, as long as it is limited to sustainable levels that enhance, rather than destroy, ecosystems. However, it is important that endangered species are protected. Also, in a world where we have destroyed big predators (for example, lions used to roam freely in Europe, yes even in the UK) hunting is needed. Unchecked, herbivores are single-handedly destroying our once thriving landscapes. I, of course, would much prefer to reintroduce the big predators as an alternative but that's another debate for another day. After all, humans are omnivores, we evolved to be a predator and be a part of existing ecosystems. Yet, would the world be a better place if we were herbivores? Most probably.

A barren National Park, devoid of wildlife. Is this really what we want conservation to be?

Double Standards

There is much about debates on hunting that I struggle with. I know people who rage bitterly against fox hunting but are happy to tuck into a steak or see no problem with the fishing industry. The meat industry is highly unsustainable and abhorrent, livestock often lead lives of constant suffering and then these lives are cut short with cruelty. And do not get me started on the current fishing practices, there is little that makes me more angry. Commercial fishing destroys whole ecosystems within minutes and underwater life is subject to a wide range of cruelties. Fish being crushed to death under the weight of hundreds of others, hooks that are capable of ripping mouths, jaws and gills whilst the fish still live, seabirds drowning in nets, the list is endless (I share these nasty details only because many remain ignorant of the true realities of fishing). If we're talking about animal cruelty shouldn't how we eat be top of the list rather than focusing on the hunting of common species? At least the fox or deer or pheasant has a chance to get away and has in all likelihood lived a natural life of freedom until that point. And why is far much less fuss made about shooting or angling? Are they really any different? Perhaps, this is the cute and cuddly view coming in. Foxes are cute, fish are not. The argument is often made that we eat what we shoot or fish from these activities which makes it okay. But why does eating make it okay? Is that why unnecessary cruelty in the meat industry is seen as acceptable, simply because we are eating what we kill? I am possibly wrong, but it seems very easy and acceptable for people to pick and choose what they take a moral stand on and I have issue with that.  

Fish feel pain and stress just as we do. Source: AnimalAid Photo: Occupy for Animals

Hunting is Conservation

For right or wrong, hunting is actually a huge part of conservation. There are reserves in Africa solely established so that elites have a playground in which they can kill as many exotic beasts as they like. Conservation is their justification. I, of course, am horrified by this reality. In Europe, some reintroductions of the European Beaver have used the argument that they could be another species of game for hunters. This is sad, yet beaver populations can get excessive and need to be controlled. It's either reintroduce the beaver and allow hunting of it in the future, or not have them at all. In some places hunting of beavers has to be actively encouraged as nobody wants to kill them (essentially they are too easy a prey). Much conservation involves controlling/removing invasive species. There have been recent moves by government to cull grey squirrels in the UK. They are a species that does not belong here and have pushed the native red squirrel to near extinction. I am not necessarily suggesting this is how conservation should be done, but it is part of the reality. 

Some African lions are protected and bred just so they can be hunted.

Ban the Ban

Coming back to fox hunting, there is another huge issue I have. I once saw a protester at a hunt. She held a placard depicting the words "Keep the Ban". That is the least inspiring slogan if I ever saw one. The hunt carried on behind her sparing her little thought. Does no one see a huge irony here? The supposed 'ban' has not banned fox hunting! It simply laid down some easily bent rules with huge loopholes. This has resulted in the sport becoming more cruel, in my view. The rule is that hounds are not allowed to kill anything. But people? They can kill whatever they like! This means that the hounds find the foxes, flush them out for them to meet guns waiting for them. There is at least one hunt I know of that uses an eagle instead of hounds. Perhaps, some people find this less cruel. But when hounds are involved, the strongest, youngest and fitter foxes may be able to escape. The old, sick and injured are more likely to be caught. This is survival of the fittest. Hunting also spreads fox populations around instead of them gathering in select areas. Guns, however, kill everything; weak, strong, sick, healthy. They all die. A fox with a bullet that was not a fatal shot may suffer for a long time before it dies. At least that does not happen with hounds. In my view, either completely ban it or do not. There should not be this half-hearted middle ground that has achieved absolutely nothing. So you say ban it then, hurrah! But farmers will shoot foxes that kill their chickens. My family used to keep chickens as pets. I think we had around 10 at one point. Pretty much all of them, over several years, were killed by foxes. Foxes tend to kill several animals at once and then only take one to eat. If hunting is truly banned, hundreds of hounds and horses would probably have to be put down. Perhaps, not all the horses but certainly all the dogs. They are not suitable as pets. As a horse and dog lover that is heartbreaking for me. So I can understand why this is upsetting for people. 

So, What's the Answer?

Regarding fox hunting, I feel the debate is extremely polarised, almost to a nonsensical level. Rural vs. urban, rich vs. poor, horse-rider vs. non horse-rider, hunter vs. environmentalist, right vs. left, tradition vs. change, man vs. nature, pest control vs. conservation. Some of these battles appear to have little to do with the issue of animal cruelty. I also think there is quite a lack of understanding by one side of the other side's perspective and vice versa. Similarly, this is the key problem with debates on environmentalism. Two sides standing on completely different playing grounds and when that happens it is very difficult to find a compromise or a right answer. Oil magnates exist on a completely different level to Greenpeace, for example. They are aliens to each other.  With fox hunting, I can perhaps bridge that gap slightly in that I have some understanding of both sides. And look where it has left me? On the fence. I'm not sure it's an issue that can ever be resolved with a Yes/No vote. 

If pushed to make a decision on hunting more generally, I would say I am against hunting. If there was a magical book that told me how to be the perfect environmentalist/conservationist and Step 1 stated that 'you must oppose hunting', I would happily jump off that fence, the decision made for me. But it is not that simple. It is not an argument to support but sometimes it may be something that is necessary.

So is it possible for environmentalism to reconcile itself with hunting? For some, no, hunting is wrong. For others, yes, hunting and angling is part of conservation. For me? As an environmentalist, there are bigger fish to fry.




I would love to hear your thoughts!